|
Replies: 19
| visibility 1,162
|
Amateur [42]
TigerPulse: 52%
Posts: 45
Joined: 2/15/07
|
Question about the targeting penalty, maybe answer
Nov 7, 2014, 10:59 AM
|
|
Everyone keep bringing up either hit to the head or leading with the helmet, but i don't think that is why the penalty was upheld. It was an upward launch on a defenseless receiver. Both of Smith's feet left the ground and the Wake Forest player hadn't established himself as a runner.
Isn't that two of the keys to the targeting penalty? It isn't just leading with the helmet. Smith was guilty.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
From what I understand, the targeting penalty is a hit
Nov 7, 2014, 11:01 AM
|
|
Where the player leads with the crown of his helmet, OR where a hit to the head/neck area is made on a defenseless player (hit can be made with head, shoulder, arm, whatever).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
By rule
Nov 7, 2014, 11:04 AM
|
|
The "launching" part only enters into the discussion when the forceful hit is to the "head and neck area".
Simpy launching yourself is not enough for targeting. You actually have to either make contact with their head/neck (and forceful contact at that), or lead with the crown of your helmet (the old "spearing" penalty).
He did neither
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3968]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3228
Joined: 10/20/11
|
Re: By rule
Nov 7, 2014, 11:06 AM
|
|
...and this is where I think the confusion on the refs part came from. They probably thought that by just launching into the receiver that it was a foul but according to the rules, it's not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3968]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3228
Joined: 10/20/11
|
Re: By rule
Nov 7, 2014, 11:07 AM
|
|
To add, hopefully even though there is no appeals process, the ACC will do the right thing and overturn the half game suspension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think it's more likely that their interpretation of
Nov 7, 2014, 11:07 AM
[ in reply to Re: By rule ] |
|
"head/neck" area extended to where the player was hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4504]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9112
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Chest is not the same as head/neck.***
Nov 7, 2014, 11:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I would agree, but they might not have.
Nov 7, 2014, 11:11 AM
|
|
Or, maybe they didn't have irrefutable video evidence to the point where they could say there was no contact to the head/neck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
That would be true if it wasn't false.
Nov 7, 2014, 11:21 AM
|
|
They had clear video evidence that showed there was no illegal hit. .. and there was no head to head or head to chest contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2683]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2751
Joined: 11/30/98
|
BUT the head bone's connected to the.... neck bone
Nov 7, 2014, 11:52 AM
[ in reply to Chest is not the same as head/neck.*** ] |
|
the neck bone's connected to the.... chest bone.
Medically they are pretty close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8888
Joined: 10/19/11
|
If they did the play would have been confirmed
Nov 7, 2014, 11:56 AM
[ in reply to Re: By rule ] |
|
The preview said that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn, which is a load of bs
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Importantly, the rule also says..."when in doubt,
Nov 7, 2014, 11:08 AM
|
|
it is targeting".
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88960
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I don't have a problem with the call on the field....
Nov 7, 2014, 11:19 AM
|
|
It was a bang bang play that occurred at full speed.
The problem I have is that they revieed it and still managed to **** it up and as a result a kid and a team gets punished twice for a good clean legal football play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [42]
TigerPulse: 52%
Posts: 45
Joined: 2/15/07
|
Re: I don't have a problem with the call on the field....
Nov 7, 2014, 11:32 AM
|
|
the fact that shoulder hit chest, the helmet made contact with head, and in between lies the neck is the problem. When you also throw in he left his feet and he was a defenseless receiver, I just can't see that there's any way it will be reversed.
if he didn't leave his feet and he was hitting a RB then it's a bogus call. But launching upward on a receiver and hitting him high is going to draw a flag and be held up almost every time. The rule states "lower your target"
Smith made a decision to leave his feet and hit the receiver very high, enough so that their heads made contact. His decision was worse than the replay officials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88960
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong***
Nov 7, 2014, 11:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93609]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
This is the sissification of America.
Nov 7, 2014, 11:36 AM
|
|
It had nothing to do with the rule book. It was a violent hit and that must stop or somebody might get hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5648]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12124
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: This is the sissification of America.
Nov 7, 2014, 11:41 AM
|
|
Soon all players will be outfitted with a device to monitor their running speed. If you run too fast, that's a penalty. Not fair to the others who can't run that fast. Of course, there will be different settings for different positions that will be determined by a large committee of experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Wrap the player up and all of this goes away.***
Nov 7, 2014, 11:57 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6287
Joined: 10/9/06
|
Re: Question about the targeting penalty, maybe answer
Nov 7, 2014, 12:01 PM
|
|
If a WR puts himself in a defenseless position because he wants to make a play coming across the middle of the field like that, I think the DBs should engage him in a tickle fight to get him to the ground. The way Smith came up and put a good hard hit on him was just mean. Is that really the kind of stuff we want our kids seeing on a Thursday night football game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 19
| visibility 1,162
|
|
|
50
